MANU/SC/0282/2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 7391, 7793, 8400, 7700, 7288, 7792, 7788, 7396, 7685, 8408, 8415, 7786, 7790, 7672, 7289, 7723, 8418, 7690, 8407, 7782, 7725, 7695, 8404, 7662, 7676, 7693, 7724, 7786, 7670, 7688, 8405, 7787, 7789, 8530, 8527, 8588, 7776, 7667, 7783, 7224, 7699, 7698, 7120, 8417, 8514, 8402, 7878, 7775, 7781, 8529, 7389, 7780, 8403, 7777, 7395, 7388, 7385, 7390, 7875, 7778, 8399, 7774, 7879, 8398, 7232, 7236, 8401, 8586, 8528, 7287, 7779, 7386, 7225, 7285, 7397, 8589 and 8587/2002, 390, 394, 397, 399, 400, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 1057, 1012, 1018, 1022, 1488, 1489, 1492, 1493, 1494, 1495, 1499, 3256, 3910, 3955 4068, 3657, 2692, 4082, 5473, 1010, 1013, 1019, 1960, 1964, 3382, 8504, 549, 392, 404, 405, 410, 1014, 1491, 1498, 3381, 1009, 393, 409, 9747, 407, 389, 391, 395, 401, 403, 408, 1011, 1016, 1015, 1017, 1020, 1490, 1496, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1966-1967, 1965, 3956, 3957, 3958, 3959, 3658, 411-412, 1021, 398, 1500 and 1501/ 2003, SLP (C) Nos. 8758, 8760, 8764, 6079, 6081, 6083, 6084, 6085, 9600, 9663, 9666, 9669, 9060, 9061, 9062, 11676, 12592, 20285, 6299, 6302, 6303, 6304, 6305, 6306, 6307, 9715, 20289, 12584, 12596, 12601, 12604, 14905, 12593, 6082, 12594, 20283, 22189, 23127, 14052, 14053, 8765, 8766, 8763, 9190, 9670, 9665, 9662, 12583, 12587, 12588, 12589, 12591, 12599, 12603, 12605, 12606, 12607, 12608-12609, 13785, 12585, 12586, 14905, 15139, 17803, 17805-17806, 16414, 18369, 8755, 6078, 6080, 9059, 9063, 9064, 12582, 12590, 12610, 16415, 6077, 15291, 20287, 20288, 23120, 23124, 23122, 6297, 6298, 6300, 6301 and 9717/ 2003, 1562, 4275 and 4853-4854/2004 and R.C.(C) No. 1649/2003
Decided On: 17.03.2004
Appellants: Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Respondent: Balbir Singh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema ORDER
1. In this batch of matters the question is whether grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the Consumer Forums in all cases is justifiable. As facts are varying, at this stage, this Court is only dealing with the question of law. Thereafter this Court shall take up each case separately.
2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered a bunch of matters, the lead matter being the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar. The Commission held, in those cases, that in cases of deficiency of service by development authorities like HUDA and GDA, interest must be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum and that this would take into consideration the escalation in the cost of construction as well.
3. Pursuant to this Judgment the National Commission has been disposing of all subsequent matters with a one paragraph order which, for all practical purposes, reads as under:-
"We have already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar [Revision Petition No. 1197 of 1998], where we have upheld the award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. We have provided for certain period during which the interest would not run. The impugned judgment is modified only to that extent. This Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of our judgment in the case of HUDA v. Darsh Kumar".
4. It has been shown to us that the facts are varying and different. Whilst facts of all cases cannot be set out by way of illustration it must be stated that in some cases even though monies had been paid and allotments had been made of flats/plots, the scheme itself got cancelled for some reason or the other. Possession was thus refused to be believed of the flats/plots allotted to the allottees. In some cases, at a much later date, possession of some other flat/plot was offered at an increased rate. In some cases possession was offered but not taken by the party. In some cases even though the scheme was not cancelled and there was no refusal to deliver possession, yet possession was not delivered for a number of years even after monies had been received. In some cases the construction was of sub-standard quality or it was incomplete. In some of the cases the authority has demanded extra amounts from the party. In some cases the party had not paid the extra amounts whilst in........